Thoughts on Metaphysics (Not the Book)

“The universe is created from pure abstract potentiality.”

No, the potentiality is very real and mundane. We might not be able to see it, or be familiar with it’s nature, but just because it seems a bit strange to us doesn’t mean it is strange and abstract in itself. Instead, the theories that have hypothesized the underlying energy and principles of matter can’t be dismissed or misused; if you are gonna talk about a unifying field or waves or the observer effect, you better learn exactly how unifying field, waves and the observer effect are defined before proposing these are metaphysical phenomena and because they were hypothesized through a material theory it’s gonna be hard for anyone who really understands the theories to propose how these phenomena are instead not like what the theorists have calculated, but metaphysical, invisible, godly, and so on, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proofs and can’t in all seriousness be based on some amateur physicist’s misunderstanding of the theories.

“The universe is self-aware.”

No, we are barely self-aware ourselves, that’s just a temporary thought that runs through our mind from time to time. Most of the time we are not aware of ourselves. It’s like Friday the 13th. If anything bad happens on that day and people remember what day it is, they will make a mental connection between the bad event and the day that is famous for bad events. On any other day this connection will not be etched into the neurons. If the event is positive it will be remembered as the exception connected to the bad event day, while it will be forgotten any other day. Likewise, whenever you think of being self-aware, you are self-aware. So the only way to realize that you are not self-aware is to have someone else point out to you that “right now, you were not thinking of your nose”. If we test self-awareness by asking “are you self-aware now” then the result would indicate that people are self-aware 100% of the time, but if we had tested self-awareness by having someone else say “were you aware of your toe-nails 10 seconds ago?” then we’d find that people are only self-aware about .1% of the time. And this goes for being aware of your own thoughts, feelings, actions, and not just physical attributes.

“The universe is ultimately intelligence, information, meaning.”

No, these three concepts are human concepts. We simplify reality to make it fit in our neuronal network. We create hierarchies of concepts to compress information, like a .zip-file. “Apple, banana, pine-apple, grapes, potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, graveyards, bungee jumping, steak tartar”; to make these meaningful we must relate them to each other, and because we can’t fit every single atom of every single banana in our head, we use Platonic ideals and simply the banana into a charicature. Then we invent fruits and vegetables and food and energy and ever-increasing abstractions. By increasing I mean reducing as detailed information is replaced by a token, a symbol that connects the neurons to guide us to the banana without having to be itself a banana and an apple and so on as we go higher and higher in the hierarchy. This reduction is responsible for the Other and God as it creates a feeling of “there’s gotta be something more”, because we know we don’t know, we know we peal things off. You can’t experience everything though, like enlightened people claim, because you’re always using your neural network to filter the universe. The whole idea of linguistic meaning and logical deduction is that we use token that can be reduced or expanded to “mean more”, but the universe is the universe, it’s not more than it is, it does not hold a human meaning or human intelligence or human information as we humanly define these concepts. The very word metaphysical, ta meta ta phusika, the works to be read after the works on physics, or today “something more than reality”, symbolizes this.

“The universe is not just inert matter.”

Yes it is and no it’s not. Just like not all matter is conscious, not all matter is living. These are human concepts to describe certain phenomena. The phenomena are material in themselves. Of course, matter is a human concept too, but by matter we mean something that is defined in coherence with all the calculations and philosophizing and deconstruction and so on; it’s consistent with all other human knowledge, and not full of logical holes and by logic I mean deduction. So, regardless of the ultimate nature of matter, the relationship that defines matter is a coherent relationship and therefore our best description of reality.

“What’s the meaning of life?”

That’s like asking “what colour is blue?”

Additional (Star Trek reference, why I point that out I explain below. Edit: It’s actually a Red Dwarf reference, I realized much later):

“The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix—if you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being so elliptical in order to bring me more quickly to my principal theme—is the determination of being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence— eidos, arché, telos, energia, ousia, aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth.”

Now, I just watched a short clip on youtube about what Derrida describes here, trace, and just watched Zizek explain that deconstructivists believe very much in what they try to disprove because deep down they fear it. Now, that can be said of e.g. any atheist, including Zizek, so I’m not sure how valid it is, it might have to be reduced to a single individual to be determined and not generalizable. And on that note, I don’t know how much  Derrida believed in metaphysics being real, I’m not althrough (neologism, take it or leave it, not a spelling mistake, keep reading to find out why I point it out, or if you have other reasons) his texts yet. So, three issues I’ve brought up and I won’t deal with them in order of importance; Sensing, new thoughts and omission:

Zizek says that the deconstructivists don’t say “i love you” because they fear the power of love, and instead make a lot of reservations to make sure the receiver understands the context of this expression and says that the ancients (the Antiquity = Heraclitus, Alexandria et cetera) said only “i love you” but that all the context was already implied and did not need articulating. I’m not so sure about this. Does a 17th century questionnairist (more neologism, because in this post I have a license to em) that uses the terms man and woman as the only tickable (neologism?) optional boxes know about transsexuals, transgenders, asexuals, homosexuals, hermaphrodites (will people reading this know I know the difference between sexuality and gender despite that list and will they know the difference themselves, would they even had reflected on it if I had not pointed it out?) or does she (why not he?) put only man and woman because of hir (look it up if you don’t know what hir means) lack of knowledge? Is this knowledge always at least in the subconscious? I think neither, I think the mind is created bottoms-up, without fixed rules beyond those of physics (and chemistry and math and genetics and so on and so forth).

Now, the omission, or the abscence of the presence, is what Derrida talks about. The Other is built-in to the self, or vice versa, and I think I remember Zizek talking about this in Lacanian (some weird Star Trek language surely; if you’ve read my blog post on aliens you would know a lot more than you do now, mainly in the sense that other experiences, like watching Star Trek might be different because you have different context than you would have if you hadn’t read it, even though it is not at all about Star Trek (I say that knowing full well that I mention Star Trek in that post, mind you, I’m not a fan of Star Trek, it’s just an example among millions still unwritten)). The video that inspired me pointed out that the mind does not interact with the actual objects of the world, it only hears air, sees electromagnetic waves, tastes and smells broken off molecules. So this might explain some things about objectivity and subjectivity, but it’s not complete, the mystery necessarily is more complex than any metaphor/description. The skin does touch, the photons and the air and the molecules are real. The molecules, the electro-chemistry, continues even further and actually comes out the other end so not only do we experience reality, reality exists straight THROUGH us. (I don’t mean because of us, I mean inside us to point out that we don’t have a mind that reflects reality; instead our mind is a part of reality, a reality that can’t be ultimately described (externalized)).

Now, I was inspired by that video even though what I’ve written has little to do with what the guy in the video said, but because of context I could produce new thoughts and write them down and writing them down produced more new thoughts and I made a point out of writing down context as it came by me. I seem to require both other people’s thoughts and still be able to produce what to others seem like novel ideas. I deconstruct a lot, I think at least, and I don’t think it’s fear, I think that if a positivist suggested all deconstruction is born out of fear, then I’d deconstruct that argument and point at a deconstructivist not operating out of fear, even if it’s only one individual, or one instance or even only a hypothetical scenario. But, as I said, I don’t know e.g. Derrida’s belief in metaphysics, if he, like me, only saw it as metaphors, because after I deconstruct and say “we can’t know anything” I turn into a positivist and reaffirm the materialist description as the only valid one, although ultimately unknowable. Sometimes I make reservations, sometimes I don’t, sometimes I elaborate, sometimes I don’t. Whatever I do, I state what I state and live in the moment by accepting the simplifications I produce. I know I don’t always become aware of what context I have removed, and I am fine with that. Ignorance is bliss, I don’t believe in, but it applies here, and that’s the thing, ultimately nothing applies, but we still use it and can’t ultimately know when we shouldn’t, so by accepting that we sometimes correct ourselves and sometimes don’t, and only do it when our feelings or other’s people’s feelings demand it, we can live in the present. And not because the present is all that exists, because that’s only the lingustic truth, not the ultimately bottoms-up, seemingly (not really) random, constructivist being, but because it’s a nice way of living not to be fighting with yourself or others, unless you feel like it of course.

Edit #2 Omission impossible:

I’m gonna try to learn more but also learn to disregard what others have written and allow myself to think more outside the box, not more often, but when I do I shouldn’t be afraid of exploring despite having no sounding board or safety net and really stretch my arguments to the limits of space.

Here’s something pretty important. When I, being a materialist or whatever, have an insight, I don’t feel satisfied as if I’m done with my thinking, I don’t feel I’ve reached a goal. When spiritualists reach enlightenment they feel they are done, at least for a while longer than I do. That’s a big difference. I don’t think there is an end-insight because the ultimate truth is unreachable, I’m gonna forever rearrange my neurons without achieving knowledge of the ultimate truth and I’m fine with that because it fits into my ontological and epistemological beliefs. I don’t believe in an ultimate meaning, I think that’s just a human concept, a simplification of the “information” we perceive in things as if information was meta/additions to the thing itself and not the thing itself as perceived in our mind. So, to connect with the “intelligence, information, meaning” I regard the mystery as a mystery, but when someone who believes in God or metaphysics have an insight they stop there because they don’t think knowledge is open-ended and so when they find God they find a meaning that closes and unites all their thoughts, but that unity is a delusion, because it’s just bottoms-up particles (particulation, actually, not particulation as if a unified universe split into parts, but rather that a bunch of particles arose (arises) independently (or dependently-arising) and together form the universe, particles in the broad sense of the word, not just quarks and larger pieces of matter (including even if it’s all just one field of energy and all forms are local maxima)). But if you say that the mystery is God, if you say there is meaning to the mystery, then you explain the mystery, you give a purpose, reason, explanation, meaning for everything in the word God, so by calling the mystery anything other than meaningless it is no longer a mystery. So, people say “ineffable” but then explain the ineffable with God or metaphysics which counters their belief in the ineffable; they have come to an explanation, while my modus operandi (mode of being) just sends me in circles, as it should do according to my epistemo-ontological beliefs. I, being a positivist materialist, actually, and ironically, maintain the mystery right to the end in saying that it ultimately remains no matter what positivist insights we have. In my discourse I am even more of a spiritualist than the spiritualists by clinging to the term mystery to the end, but epistemo-ontologically I won’t accept any other description than the fractal/particulated (materialism as it’s called in this century of science) no matter what the ultimate nature of the universe is.


Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Thoughts on Metaphysics (Not the Book)”

  1. Tweets that mention Thoughts on Metaphysics (Not the Book) « enleuk -- Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Edvalson, Adam Edvalson. Adam Edvalson said: Thoughts on Metaphysics (Not the Book) « enleuk […]

  2. sts Says:

    I think you got talent in writing posts. Waiting for more posts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: